RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Many judges seem to be of the mindset that they are omnipotent & omniscient. They revel in their power to stop things, & we've all discussed & cussed "legislation from the bench." That is why I favor judges who are strict constitutionalists & do not add things to the law - they interpret it as-is.
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
I'm gonna have to agree with the Supreme Court on that one. The Constitution provides very strict rules on the rights to a lawyer and a trial by jury. Allowing the government to hold someone indefinately would open up a can of worms that nobody needs. Then who decides who is a terror suspect? The Supreme Cour acted correctly within the powers vested in them in Article III of the Constitution. They also correctly interpreted Article V and Article VI of the Bill of Rights correctly. Article II never gives the executive office the right to become judge, jury, and executioner. That role is left to the judicial system.
I think overall, Ashcroft has done a pretty good job. But he is a little out of line here. The Constitution either stands in its entirity, or it stands for nothing. If the government is allowed to ignore the right to a trial by jury, what next? The right to bear arms?
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Quote:
Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.
I believe the judge is in error with this particular line of reasoning. Al-queda and all of its' members have indeed "declared war" upon America and most certainly have attacked us and murdered our citizens. And America has declared war upon al-queda. Anybody who thinks we are not at war with al-queda is either stupid, in denial or both.
I believe, but have not been able to confirm, that this particular prisoner (Salim Ahmed Hamdan) was captured in Afghanistan. I would think that his being captured in Afghanistan while we were fighting al-queda soldiers and being a fighting member of al-queda would obviously make him a prisoner of war. This judge is reaching way too far to determine wrongly that Hamdan is not a prisoner of war.
I will listen to anybody's arguments about what rights a citizen has, what rights an emmigrant worker has, what rights you think a terrorist captured on american soil has but think it is absolutely ridiculous for a federal judge to make rulings on something that originated in Afghanistan.
I hope the U.S. Supreme court does take this case and put an end to all of this judicial BS. And there needs to be some type of sanctioning against some fo these judges who are off the deep end.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Quote:
Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.
I believe the judge is in error with this particular line of reasoning. Al-queda and all of its' members have indeed "declared war" upon America and most certainly have attacked us and murdered our citizens. And America has declared war upon al-queda. Anybody who thinks we are not at war with al-queda is either stupid, in denial or both.
Right Cal. They are the enemy period.And when have any of our enemys followed or obeyed the geneva convention? ( thats internatinal norms the terrorists dont follow either by a long shot)
As for American civil/legal rights wouldnt you have to be a citizen first? But a lot of things i dont understand about all these things going on.Or the law etc
But we have them sign WRITTIN claims they will not kill us or take part in such acts
captured in the fields& mtns of afganiastan training for a holey war - they could have been shoe salesmen or houseboys like johnny taliban- not terrorists . They have to be telling the truth & a nonthreat cuz caty said so& so did the media[&:]
Im sure plenty go back to doing what they where doing.... killing americans job#1 & all those needed to supply ,fund, support, hide them.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Article III, Section 2 specifically states:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by law have directed."
I do not rate terrorists as soldiers, I see them as criminals. As criminals, they are still entitled to be represented and heard. We are fighting to give rights like these to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. There is always some possiblity that a mistake was made and that an innocent person is being held. We should do what we can to minimize these risks. We've promised that our system is better, and we need to back that claim up.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Quote:
I do not rate terrorists as soldiers, I see them as criminals. As criminals, they are still entitled to be represented and heard. We are fighting to give rights like these to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq
We are fighting to defend our nation against international terrorism. Liberation of places such as Afghanistan and Iraq are colateral benefits of the war against terror. Terrorists, may very well be criminals in the sense that their actions are crimes against humanity but they are soldiers in this effort just as surely as if they wore the uniform of the nation of their birth or citizenship.
If they are to be granted defacto citizenship of the U.S. by their very acts against the U.S. then common sense would only leave one possible alternative. Anybody in a combat zone armed in any manner and using that weapon against our troops, should not be captured but killed on the spot. That way nobody can question the possibility of a "Mistake" having been made since they would be killed in the act of attempting to kill one or more of our troops.
You only have to read them their rights if they are arrested, not if they are dead!
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Quote:
Article III, Section 2 specifically states:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by law have directed."
I do not rate terrorists as soldiers, I see them as criminals. As criminals, they are still entitled to be represented and heard. We are fighting to give rights like these to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. There is always some possiblity that a mistake was made and that an innocent person is being held. We should do what we can to minimize these risks. We've promised that our system is better, and we need to back that claim up.
North Texan, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it congress who established the military tribunals and how to run them?
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
I interpreted the administrations position to be that terrorists are not prisoners of war because they are not soldiers.
Quote:
Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.
Yes, Congress established military tribunals and the rules governing them. But my argument is the administration admits they are not prisoners of war. So I am not sure where the military's jurisdiction is coming from. This is not the real problem, though. The problem is the president and the attorney general want to control the whole process and improvise which laws to apply. They want to use military law against the suspects, but they want to deny the suspects their rights under military law. When this happens, the judicial system can and should step in IMO.
RE: ashcroft says judges threaten national security
Quote:
A similar sitiation arose in during WWII. Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent
Intresting link N texin.
But i dont see how exactly it applys today either other then then to tie up fdr in the courts ,by lawyers. They sure didnt let the enemy go.The only problem seemed to be what to call them& who had contol of them/ seems there was never a despuite that they where the enemy.
And fdr exicuited most of them in the end reguardless- with plans to do the same with the second batch after the rigamaroll in the courts was straightened out in a time of war with a know enemy seems like a waste&unessary
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
ashcroft says judges threaten national security
